Marriage Law Is Challenged as Equaling Discrimination

BOSTON — Nancy Gill has worked for the Postal Service for almost 23 years. But because she is married to a woman, she cannot provide the same health benefits to her spouse that her co-workers at the post office can provide for their families.

Ms. Gill, 51, and Marcelle Letourneau, 47, married in Massachusetts in 2004 and are the lead plaintiffs in a suit challenging the federal law — the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA — that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. The women, who live in Bridgewater, Mass., are challenging the section that denies marriage-related benefits to same-sex couples, saying they are being denied equal protection under the law.

The case, filed in March 2009, was argued Thursday in Federal District Court here before Judge Joseph L. Tauro. It is the first major challenge to the act and is likely to end up before the Supreme Court.

Mary L. Bonauto, director of the civil rights project for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, argued on behalf of the couple and 15 other plaintiffs, calling the case “a classic equal-protection issue.”

Ms. Bonauto said that the purpose of the act was to “show that same-sex marriage was immoral” but that it ended up hurting such couples by making them pay twice for health insurance, for example, or denying them death benefits.

The Obama administration’s Justice Department was in the position of defending the law, just as it had done in a case last year, even though Barack Obama had called during the 2008 presidential campaign for repealing it. Advocates for gay rights have said they have little hope that Mr. Obama will actively seek a repeal, given the political climate and the priority of other issues.

Scott Simpson, arguing for the government on Thursday, opened by acknowledging the administration’s opposition to the act, but saying he was still obliged to defend its constitutionality.

“This presidential administration disagrees with DOMA as a matter of policy,” Mr. Simpson said. “But that does not affect its constitutionality.”

The act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

Mr. Simpson, who asked the judge to dismiss the case, said Congress was initially motivated to pass the act because one state, Hawaii, was starting to consider whether to legalize same-sex marriage. And now that five states and the District of Columbia have legalized it, he said, the act spares the government the trouble of keeping track of different laws in different states.

To that argument, Ms. Bonauto told the court, “We’re not talking about mom-and-pop operations here; we’re talking about the federal government.”

A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would not legalize same-sex marriage in states that have not done so, but it would give same-sex couples in all states access to benefits and protections available to other married couples.

Outside the courthouse after opening arguments were finished, Ms. Gill said of Mr. Simpson’s assertion that the administration disagreed with the act, “That’s sort of a victory for me because I think the federal government knows that it’s wrong, and I think it’s going to change.”

Ms. Bonauto said she did not view the government as “rolling over.”

“It’s really a question for them of institutional integrity to continue to defend the constitutionality of statutes,” she said. “That’s what they’ve done here.”

A case in California argues that there is a fundamental right for anyone, including same-sex couples, to marry, but the one here is focused more narrowly on the denial of protections and benefits to such couples.